blog.benschumacher.com

A friend of mine has proposed a new coloring system to replace the one current in use by the Department of Homeland Security. Some may find this new system offensive, and classify it as "racial profiling," but let's be honest, isn't this what a number (<quote>The report also substantiated a claim by a federal prison inmate who said he was told by a prison doctor, "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did."</quote>) of our citizens are already doing? The new system just makes it easier for us to identify who should be viewed as the current threat.

It could probably still use some tweaking, but its definitely a step closer towards reality.

In a recent article, published in Creative Loafing Atlanta, author Marc Schultz details a run-in he had with the FBI. Under most circumstances, most people probably wouldn't want to share their run-ins with this particular government body, but Marc's case was exceptional, to say the least. Check out this blurb:

Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.

My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"

Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?

Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."

You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?

The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"

from Careful: The FB-eye may be watching

It turns out Marc was reading a printout... it was of an article titled "Weapons of Mass Stupidity," which is about "the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11." Not exactly a pro-Bush, pro-right article, but certainly not a document outlining a terrorist attack, information on bomb builds, or anything along those lines. The really strange part about this whole story is (as pointed out by my buddy Jon), who in their right mind (no pun intended) would actually report somebody as a possible terrorist, just for having an opinion (or reading an opinion) that disagrees with that of this country's controlling party? It seems silly to me.

Bruce Scheiner has a column in his most recent issue of the Crypto-Gram Newsletter about fighting back against stupid security. He goes over some problems that he and his wife have experienced with various institutions that have implemented new "security" measures in the post-9/11 world, measures that do little to increase security, and generally do more to invade the privacy of their customers.

Our security largely depends on the actions of others and the environment we're in. For example, the tamper resistance of food packaging depends more on government packaging regulations than on our purchasing choices. The security of a letter mailed to a friend depends more on the ethics of the workers who handle it than on the brand of envelope we choose to use. How safe an airplane is from being blown up has little to do with our actions at the airport and while on the plane. (Shoe-bomber Richard Reid provided the rare exception to this.) The security of the money in our bank accounts, the crime rate in our neighborhoods, and the honesty and integrity of our police departments are out of our direct control. We simply don't have enough power in the negotiations to make a difference.

Bruce goes on to point out that while I, as an individually, have very little control over the security measures implement on my behalf, we, in aggregate, have the ability to change stupid security measures. The question is, do "we" really care that much? The vast majority of United States Citizens are so accustomed to showing their IDs all over the place, that it they probably don't think twice about it... some of them might even feel safer as a result of having to show their ID. The unfortunate result of this is that while some people are concerned with their privacy, there are still not enough to make governments and corporations understand that security at the cost of privacy is not an acceptable solution. Changes are, it will get much worse before it starts to get any better.